How long before nation states buy bitcoin?
- Thread starter WolfeTone
- Start date
- Status
I will let @tecate speak for him/herself. But if I'm correct, it is that tecate has pointed out to a Central Banker that has confirmed, in his view, that bitcoin is a SoV without it being dependent on becoming a MoE.
He's just one in a long notable line of folk that have done so, Wolfie. I thought the Duke would be impressed - as CB'ers are like high priests to the Duke. He told us once before that he would always trust them. It was clearly a mistake as the whole thing has set him off on a John Kelleher Loop. Those episodes tend to last a few weeks so brace yourself.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
@tecate has also pointed out that Devil Roubini has stated that bitcoin is a SoV. This very Duke has conceded that bitcoin IS a SoV. So too is a bet on High Definition for the Epsom Derby. What is at stake is why is it a SoV and for how long is that reason sustainable. @tecate is trying to make SoV some sort of existential quality. A pig is a pig is a pig.
Let me try and explain the conditionality and temporal nature of some of our SoV assessments. I will draw diagrams using my own good self as an example. Imagine I found a bitcoin in my pocket. But I am told the private key will follow in a month's time. How much would I sell my bitcoin to @tecate for? I would certainly accept $60k and refuse $100, but $30k?? But if the private key will be posted in 10 years time, I'd probably take the $100. I think Devil Roubini would use similar metrics.
JK sees its value in 10 years time as highly contingent on its achieving MoE maturity, but if I read him correctly he thinks that is going to happen and probably wouldn't accept $60k (presuming it comes with a solemn undertaking not to buy another bitcoin of course).
Dallas Man? He hasn't opined one way or another on JK's axiom, unless he has communicated separately to your good self dear Wolfie on the point*. I am not sure how much Dallas Man would accept today for a 10 year realisation of a bitcoin.
* I note your trick with the word "without". It does not imply that he rejects the thing that it is "without".
Last edited:
Get out of it Duke. You spent years crying about 'no intrinsic value' this and 'no store of value' that. There are pages worth of posts from you where you deny that it is a store of value.
You had to change your tune when that clown Roubini tried to walk it back with his admission that bitcoin is a store of value only to go back to classic Roubini rant mode once more because it will be a cold day in hell before the crypto community let him walk it back. They will never let it down.
You need not worry about it Duke. You'll never own a complete bitcoin - by the time you accept that the world has changed around you, you'll be lucky to be able to get your hands on a fraction of a bitcoin.
Kaplan as CEO of the Dallas Fed - expressed his own opinion. You've tried to twist it this way and that and yet what remains is that he confirmed his view that bitcoin IS a store of value. That's where it ends.
BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer re. post # 101 above. In your own time.
@WolfeTone : What's this stunt you've pulled??
I'm somewhat reluctant to take the deep dive into the the gospel according to JK.
I've highlighted in bold the part that I think really matters, which incidentally is not the part that @Duke of Marmalade highlights.
JK
"Bitcoin's utility as a store of value is dependent on its utility as a medium of exchange. We base this in turn on the assumption that for something to be used as a store of value it needs to have some intrinsic value, and if Bitcoin does not achieve success as a medium of exchange, it will have no practical utility and thus no intrinsic value and won't be appealing as a store of value."
JK is a smart fella no doubt, but he is simply offering an opinion. That opinion holds merit, but it doesn't necessarily hold true.
I have mentioned, in my opinion, the conditions and circumstances that I consider bitcoin may become a mainstream MoE. I do not assume however, unlike JK, that it must become a MoE to have any practical utility.
Bitcoin already serves a practical utility insofar I have somewhere to place surplus income that I consider will hold greater value than if I left it on bank deposit. This is speculative, but it is a practical utility, same as if I had the same view about gold and bought some.
But I think we have been through the intrinsic value/ gold debate, so I will park that up here.
I've highlighted in bold the part that I think really matters, which incidentally is not the part that @Duke of Marmalade highlights.
JK
"Bitcoin's utility as a store of value is dependent on its utility as a medium of exchange. We base this in turn on the assumption that for something to be used as a store of value it needs to have some intrinsic value, and if Bitcoin does not achieve success as a medium of exchange, it will have no practical utility and thus no intrinsic value and won't be appealing as a store of value."
JK is a smart fella no doubt, but he is simply offering an opinion. That opinion holds merit, but it doesn't necessarily hold true.
I have mentioned, in my opinion, the conditions and circumstances that I consider bitcoin may become a mainstream MoE. I do not assume however, unlike JK, that it must become a MoE to have any practical utility.
Bitcoin already serves a practical utility insofar I have somewhere to place surplus income that I consider will hold greater value than if I left it on bank deposit. This is speculative, but it is a practical utility, same as if I had the same view about gold and bought some.
But I think we have been through the intrinsic value/ gold debate, so I will park that up here.
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
Crypto will unbank the banked? I hardly even know what it means. Does he mean me? There is an awful lot of what JK says that I disagree with including his prediction of a $514k price for bitcoin. But my repeated citations of that central axiom are in a way me quoting scripture.
You know what I meant. To be fair to Wolfie he hasn't risen to your bait.
But just to spell it out. Wolfie took the absence of the JK Axiom in Dallas Man's comment to imply that he, DM, didn't accept that axiom. I suppose that is borderline fair debating tactic.
But there are lots of conditionality that was left out and which I presume even the cult accepts are present e.g.
That another crypto usurps bitcoin
That quantum computing dismantles the elliptic cryptography
That scalability is not satisfactorily addressed
That Central Banks act successfully to suppress it
That Elon Musk gets tired of it and moves on to another toy
etc. etc.
Last edited:
What are you going on with? You'll twist and turn every which way to not accept what he stated. Whether you like it or not, that IS what he stated...i.e. Bitcoin IS a store of value.
I guess WeWork are thinking along the same lines as it too is now accepting crypto for its offerings. It said that it's going to hold that crypto on its balance sheet. Coinbase has confirmed it will pay for WeWork services in bitcoin. Taking it a step further still, WeWork will pay landlords and third parties in crypto if it can.
Meanwhile, US mobile payments service Venmo began offering the ability for its 77 million customers to buy/sell/hold bitcoin today.
Last edited:
Well aware of that.
OK...I'm gonna put my conspiracy hat on...
For years Russia is totes annoyed at the might of the greenback, and has been, for decades, trying to upset the status quo. However, now Russia is also totes annoyed at the might of the euro. It's just not fair on poor, misunderstood Russia. But all of a sudden a mysterious crypto "currency" emerges and Russia thinks "У меня будет немного этого". Russia must be having monetary wet dreams at the prospect of something like Bitcoin coming along like a cat among the pigeons. They could get everything they wished for without doing anything to make it work! Ditto for North Korea....like manna from heaven really.
So....with my conspiracy well secured....maybe Russia and North Korea are pushing Bitcoin? Maybe communism-loving tecate & wolfie have slurped the Kool-Aid and will try any argument they can think of to legitimize Bitcoin for as many uses as possible. Afterall, if countries did by Bitcoin, wouldn't that mean less reliance on the dollar/euro? Wouldn't that just be dandy?!
The hat was getting a bit tight, so I've removed it now..
For years Russia is totes annoyed at the might of the greenback, and has been, for decades, trying to upset the status quo. However, now Russia is also totes annoyed at the might of the euro. It's just not fair on poor, misunderstood Russia. But all of a sudden a mysterious crypto "currency" emerges and Russia thinks "У меня будет немного этого". Russia must be having monetary wet dreams at the prospect of something like Bitcoin coming along like a cat among the pigeons. They could get everything they wished for without doing anything to make it work! Ditto for North Korea....like manna from heaven really.
So....with my conspiracy well secured....maybe Russia and North Korea are pushing Bitcoin? Maybe communism-loving tecate & wolfie have slurped the Kool-Aid and will try any argument they can think of to legitimize Bitcoin for as many uses as possible. Afterall, if countries did by Bitcoin, wouldn't that mean less reliance on the dollar/euro? Wouldn't that just be dandy?!
The hat was getting a bit tight, so I've removed it now..
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
I think I may have discovered a fundamental flaw in your conspiracy theory!
I'm disappointed. You've left out Iran, Venezuela and Russia.
So your logic is that if something which has utility for ordinary people can possibly be used by anyone you deem to be bad, then we should deprive use of that item for everyone? I'm sorry but I don't agree.
The Americans have weaponised money. You think that they are doing good with this? I certainly don't. A couple of years ago, they locked Iran out of international banking - against the wishes of the Europeans. They didn't care - they just acted unilaterally.
Next up....give us an example of how sanctions have really been a force for good in the world? There isn't one! Have you talked to anyone from a sanctions-hit country? ...because I do all the time. In Venezuela, they have a shortage of all manner of things including medical equipment, drugs, etc. A family member of a friend of mine died in Venezuela last year because of a lack of a very basic drug. That death would not have happened had there not have been sanctions. It's one of countless cases of the real effects of sanctions.
What sanctions aim to do is to make life so unbearable for ordinary people that they're forced to rise up against their government. To me that defies human rights. If there is a wayward regime, those people don't suffer under sanctions - but ordinary people do.
Lastly, in cases of errant governments, bitcoin is a force for good. Bitcoin makes the transportation of money to human rights groups and those that work against oppressive regimes much easier as its very easy to conceal and transmit. It's the peoples money and a force for good. It's for this reason that bitcoin is supported by the likes of the Human Rights Foundation. When the Americans took the very democratic step of locking Wikileaks out of the financial system (by instructing the likes of visa NOT to process donations from ordinary decent people to the organisation), it was bitcoin that broke that wayward, oppressive action. It's for this reason that Greenpeace accept bitcoin as a payment method - despite this wayward 'boil the oceans' narrative that's doing the rounds re. bitcoin.
Ah, so you support a system where ONE country comes along and insists that only its currency should be used for international trade? How very democratic. At Bretton Woods the Americans insisted on the use of their currency as an international reserve asset - dismissing Keynes proposal of a Special Drawing Rights based reserve instrument. That - to further their own influence in the world over and above other countries - not for the good of all. Later they pulled the same stunt with the advent of the Petro-dollar ...doing a deal with the Saudi's (to support their wayward regime) in return for the Saudi's pricing their oil in dollars.
You think that its just Russia that has a problem with this system? There's NO defending it. The world's reserve currency should be entirely neutral. If only there was a currency that was tamperproof and neutral that's easily transmitted and uncensorable that could do the job.....
The bad takes continue. I've over 1,200 posts on here. Provide a link to just one that proves I'm a communist. :-D
It seems to me that your information is incorrect. There is only one world reserve currency - it's the US dollar. The euro isn't the world's reserve currency. Secondly, despite that, the Chinese and Russians have taken to using it in some of their recent trade deals - to try and get out from under the thumb of the US. So where are they rebelling against the Euro? My understanding is that they're disappointed as the Euro project has been a disappointment - and its not as useful for international trade as they'd like it to be (as opposed to the US dollar).
Last edited:
You know, there has been a few posters knocking around here for years with very similar arguments and viewpoints as your good self. Maybe when these restrictions are lifted you should get together. There's even a thread for such things https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...ctions-are-lifted.217460/page-12#post-1715819
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
That's what I mean by a cult. All the evils of this world can be traced back to America and/or US$.
What very similar arguments and viewpoints? My interests don't go beyond discussion of decentralised cryptocurrency on AAM. What on earth is the linked post got to do with this discussion or with me?
Isn't that post regarding covid/vaccination? How is that relevent to this discussion? How is it relevant to me given that I have not expressed ANY view on that subject on AAM?
I did not say any such thing. I said that it's not healthy that one government should have a monopoly on the terms of international trade.
- Status